About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
issues in difficult american foreign policy. when do we get involved in an atrocity going on within someone else's country. that's a very tough question. would we have intervened in germany in 1938 if we knew what was going on. i think we all like to say we we d have and if we could, would have stopped it. it presupposes and the implication is we have a right do that anywhere in the world if there's an atrocity going on. that a u reflect on little bit? >> thank you, senator. defined one t significant kpant issue -- of militaryal basis intervention in the country. certainly every nation has a themselves in t their own history of self-defense. but to answer your question, you of the dimensions of his that you laid out, as did amplify on psey who cuts back ations and on the quell, when do we do this. what basis? we canthere a frame work follow? y answer is you start with the realities. these are both imperfect different situations. out, i dempsey laid think, rather clearly some of he dimensions of each of the countries in that region. self-interest. you have others who have self-inter
families have skin in the game of foreign policy, but if you don't a son or daughter in uniform, husband or wife in uniform, where is your skin in that game when you're not paying for those decisions? and when we make decisions that we don't have to pay for, we make bad decisions. i agree with the president. folks need to pay their fair share. i think we all need to have some skin in the game. folks who make more ought to pay more. folks who make less ought to pay less. but we are all members of the board of directors of the united states of america, mr. speaker. all 320 million of us sit on the board of directors of the united states of america, and yet you ought to have skin in the game when you are making decisions about high this organization runs. how do we create revenue? how do we reduce deficits? how do we make sure folks are paying their fair share? the good news is, mr. speaker, the president's aware of the fair tax. i am not willing to call him a fair tax president. i don't think the president's quite onboard, we are not going to wait on the president to be onboard. we are goi
characterized the treatment as torture when used by foreign governments. the c.i.a. recognized this in an internal review and realized many of the interrogation techniques employed were contrary with the policy the u.s. has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal council which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those decisions have since been repudiated by the o.l.c. it's sefment even in it's peap it relies not only on a narrow definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is important context as to how the opinion came about, but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the available reco
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3